The yellow brick road

The difference between each family has never been as pronounced as it is today. The ‘modern family’ is a wide term that now includes, same sex couples, single parents, families where children have been adopted, donor conceived, half and step siblings. The list is seemingly endless. Or is it?

There have been two stories in the press in the last week about families wishing to enter into civil partnerships that have had such a request refused.

One such case involved two sisters who want to have their family unit recognised by the law. When Catherine Utley fell pregnant with her daughter, Livvy, she and her sister, Ginda decided they would bring Livvy up together. Both women have supported each other in the raising of Livvy to the 22 year old she is today. Both have cherished and guided her into her adult life, yet the law does not recognise their family unit.

The other case involved Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, a heterosexual couple who want to enter into a civil partnership rather than a marriage. Their case was dismissed. It is likely they will continue to pursue it through the appeal courts.

Ever changing rights

It is worthwhile reminding ourselves of the position when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force on 5 December 2005. There was significant demand to provide an alternative to marriage to those in a same sex relationship. The main reason the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was brought into force was to provide an option (which was not equal but went some way towards equality) to same sex couples who wanted to have their relationship recognised by the law.

Now the future of civil partnerships is uncertain. From March 2014, same sex couples have been able to marry. A suitable and equal alternative has finally been offered and some may say that the Civil Partnership Act 2004, looking forwards, is obsolete.

However, while it may not be in keeping with its original aims, what is the harm of allowing recognition to all those who want to have their relationships recognised by the law? It would provide us all with certainty. Can it be a bad thing that each member of the family knows where it stands, knows who is part of the family and what their rights and responsibilities are? In a society where the ‘traditional family’ could be considered a minority, are we obliged to offer that option, or is it discrimination to not offer that?

These are complex issues and existing law would require amendment if we are to provide that option.

The yellow brick road

It is worth us remembering that legislation was in place in the times of Henry VIII criminalising certain ‘homosexual acts’, and it took until 1967 to achieve limited decriminalisation of ‘homosexual acts’.

We have come a very long way since then. It has taken time but in the last decade in particular, huge strides have been taken towards equality for those in same sex relationships. It has taken patience, campaigning, increased public awareness, education and time. Family law will continue to develop; it must, however, the pace is unknown.

It will be important to continue to work to develop family law to keep up with changes in society. One such example of an area needing change is in relation to cohabiting couples. There has been discussion about change but so far, we are stuck with a system that provides almost no legal rights to couples who have chosen to live together but not to marry.

On a breakdown of that relationship, it can often come as an unpleasant surprise that the claims one half of the couple may bring against the other are very limited (regardless of the length of the relationship).

As society has developed, the law has changed. We cannot deny that. Some incredible developments have been made. We must keep going, for the benefit of families, of all kinds.

Rachel Lemon is a partner in the family department at Mundays